Conquer Club

DoomYoshi wrote:So let's get this straight.

Your grandfather is Jewish and happens to be one of 260 families in Norway that were sent to Auschwitz.

Your grandmother is either black or Catholic - since those are the two groups that the KKK killed.

You have a Spanish/English name.

You find it not bothersome at all to spew invective against the Catholics, meaning you are a member of the KKK.


Something in this story doesn't add up.

My grandmother is a Native American.
Kinda personal, isn't it? We don't know for sure what happened. The town's records are missing. Locals in Norway said that my great-aunt was taken to Germany. But we don't know what happened to anyone but my great-grandfather.
My name is Spanish.

You do not find it at all bothersome that Catholic priests have raped children and are being protected from prosecution from the law by members of the church? Meaning you are a member of NAMBLA.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Also, that story is pretty similar to mine, and it seems pretty conceited of you to say that X person has more claim to be upset about the similar treatment of his relative than Y person.

Qwert has more claim to be upset about the treatment of his grandfather because his grandfather was, in fact, killed. Fifteen years ago.

Your contortionist attempts to try to get everyone to empathize with your self-perceived and self-assigned victim status now has you competing against others for which of you experienced the worst was acquainted with someone who experienced the worst ... it just gets weirder and weirder.

saxitoxin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Also, that story is pretty similar to mine, and it seems pretty conceited of you to say that X person has more claim to be upset about the similar treatment of his relative than Y person.

Qwert has more claim to be upset about the treatment of his grandfather because his grandfather was, in fact, killed. Fifteen years ago.

Your contortionist attempts to try to get everyone to empathize with your self-perceived and self-assigned victim status now has you competing against others for who experienced the worst was acquainted with someone who experienced the worst ... it just gets weirder and weirder.

Are you saying that you want Qwert to complain before you consider this legitimate? That's an odd argument to make.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Also, that story is pretty similar to mine, and it seems pretty conceited of you to say that X person has more claim to be upset about the similar treatment of his relative than Y person.

Qwert has more claim to be upset about the treatment of his grandfather because his grandfather was, in fact, killed. Fifteen years ago.

Your contortionist attempts to try to get everyone to empathize with your self-perceived and self-assigned victim status now has you competing against others for who experienced the worst was acquainted with someone who experienced the worst ... it just gets weirder and weirder.

Are you saying that you want Qwert to complain before you consider this legitimate?

Before I consider what legitimate? That Juan is a victim of the Holocaust by process of acquaintance? If Anne Frank logged onto Conquer Club it wouldn't make that legitimate.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Also, that story is pretty similar to mine, and it seems pretty conceited of you to say that X person has more claim to be upset about the similar treatment of his relative than Y person.

Qwert has more claim to be upset about the treatment of his grandfather because his grandfather was, in fact, killed. Fifteen years ago.

Your contortionist attempts to try to get everyone to empathize with your self-perceived and self-assigned victim status now has you competing against others for who experienced the worst was acquainted with someone who experienced the worst ... it just gets weirder and weirder.

Are you saying that you want Qwert to complain before you consider this legitimate?

Before I consider what legitimate? That Juan is a victim of the Holocaust by process of acquaintance? If Anne Frank logged onto Conquer Club it wouldn't make that legitimate.

So what do you mean by more claim? If Anne Frank has no claim to legitimacy, does anyone have a right to feel upset? (apart from, for some reason, Qwert?)

Yeah, he made an embarrassing statement, I think. A rare slip-up.
But I do like how saxi worded his response so that any response to it makes it appear like I'm in a competition.
That was well written. On some levels, your vanity is well deserved Saxi-Henson, but I think that you've gone over to a point where you've become sort-of egocentric, but definitely a narcissistic monolauging egomaniacal. But, all the praise: it's not deserved by you. Your character is cleverly done, but all this praise is for your character, not for you as a puppeteer. Nobody remembers the writer, only the star actor.
When you actually try to debate or argue, it's mostly just hammering down any forum goer that should disagree with your unquestionable genius. And these arguments you expose like a raging Henry Ford have nothing to do with the topics, they're just personal attacks. This is a typical sign of a megalomaniac. You did it with player a lot, and sym too, and you also do it to me. And the only thing she and I have in common with them is that we challenge your authority. You've converted the forum with Saxitoxin cheerleaders, and may god have mercy on the soul of anyone who sounds more intelligent than you do about anything. You'll kill them, and your Saxitoads with laugh for your enjoyment.

Juan_Bottom wrote: they're just personal attacks. This is a typical sign of a megalomaniac.

Juan_Bottom wrote:you are a member of NAMBLA

lol

You're welcome that I gave you the chance to bail out on Sym, but still, the fact that you're an egomaniac is almost deserving of it's own thread I think. A thread like that can't be counted as a personal attack against you, because
A) you are an egomaniac
and
B) you're just a fictional character
Or wait, maybe (B) does make it a personal attack. I dunno,.. but I bet it would be a fun thread discussion to have.

Symmetry wrote:So what do you mean by more claim?

Well, to be fair, Juan has constructed a whole system of "what is offensive" where the weight of each individual offense is not decided by the emotional impact on the recipient but on the general consensus of "minds past and present" so yeah, JB needs to convincingly show why his personal reaction to the Holocaust joke thread is more valid than say tgd's reaction to a thread bashing the Catholic Church.
Jb is the one getting technical/scientific about the appropriate reactions to the multicolored rainbow that makes up all potentially offensive remarks/threads so why not discuss the strength of firsthand experiences versus secondhand, thirdhand and so on?
I don't personally think the details of the offense matter as long as someone is legitimately offended but Juan has made it abundantly clear that the details do matter so it's up to him to defend this monster he's created.

Funkyterrance wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So what do you mean by more claim?

Well, to be fair, Juan has constructed a whole system of "what is offensive" where the weight of each individual offense is not decided by the emotional impact on the recipient but on the general consensus of "minds past and present" so yeah, JB needs to convincingly show why his personal reaction to the Holocaust joke thread is more valid than say tgd's reaction to a thread bashing the Catholic Church.
Jb is the one getting technical/scientific about the appropriate reactions to the multicolored rainbow that makes up all potentially offensive remarks/threads so why not discuss the strength of firsthand experiences versus secondhand, thirdhand and so on?
I don't personally think the details of the offense matter as long as someone is legitimately offended but Juan has made it abundantly clear that the details do matter so it's up to him to defend this monster he's created.

Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

Juan_Bottom wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:So let's get this straight.

Your grandfather is Jewish and happens to be one of 260 families in Norway that were sent to Auschwitz.

Your grandmother is either black or Catholic - since those are the two groups that the KKK killed.

You have a Spanish/English name.

You find it not bothersome at all to spew invective against the Catholics, meaning you are a member of the KKK.


Something in this story doesn't add up.

My grandmother is a Native American.
Kinda personal, isn't it? We don't know for sure what happened. The town's records are missing. Locals in Norway said that my great-aunt was taken to Germany. But we don't know what happened to anyone but my great-grandfather.
My name is Spanish.

You do not find it at all bothersome that Catholic priests have raped children and are being protected from prosecution from the law by members of the church? Meaning you are a member of NAMBLA.

Yea, you are right on this, I'm sorry for that post.

I do care what the Catholic Church does. However, compared to the alternatives of "Get-Rich-Quick/Creationism" Protestantism (e.g. Joel Olsteen) or "Straps Bomb to Chest because there is no Halal meat at the Office Building Jewish Deli" Islam, I would prefer Catholicism.

DoomYoshi wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:So let's get this straight.

Your grandfather is Jewish and happens to be one of 260 families in Norway that were sent to Auschwitz.

Your grandmother is either black or Catholic - since those are the two groups that the KKK killed.

You have a Spanish/English name.

You find it not bothersome at all to spew invective against the Catholics, meaning you are a member of the KKK.


Something in this story doesn't add up.

My grandmother is a Native American.
Kinda personal, isn't it? We don't know for sure what happened. The town's records are missing. Locals in Norway said that my great-aunt was taken to Germany. But we don't know what happened to anyone but my great-grandfather.
My name is Spanish.

You do not find it at all bothersome that Catholic priests have raped children and are being protected from prosecution from the law by members of the church? Meaning you are a member of NAMBLA.

Yea, you are right on this, I'm sorry for that post.

I do care what the Catholic Church does. However, compared to the alternatives of "Get-Rich-Quick/Creationism" Protestantism (e.g. Joel Olsteen) or "Straps Bomb to Chest because there is no Halal meat at the Office Building Jewish Deli" Islam, I would prefer Catholicism.

Well said.The Pope salutes you.

chang50 wrote:Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

I you haven't noticed, CC is not a courtroom and there are no laws so to speak about what is offensive and what isn't, barring the forum guidelines. So no, there is not nescessarily any more validity to Juan's case than tgd's unless the community as a whole agrees that it's so. In fact, thus far it appears as though more individuals are claiming that JB's second hand involvement in the Holocaust has no more if not less validity than any other "butthurt" that might occur on here. Juan, and now chang, are assuming facts(second hand affects of the Holocaust are somehow more valid than the affects of firsthand insults to one's church) to base their entire case when it appears as though this is not even the general consensus. For the umpteenth time, the Holocaust, due to it's not-so-recent nature, is not considered by some to have the gravity that JB insists it should.
Need I remind those out there that JB and others have a tendency to mock/demonize the church and those of faith, not discuss it/them? Surely this needs to be taken into consideration as well.

Juan wrote:At the start of this thread I used the R word, and you took exception to that. I don't necessarily understand why anyone would believe that that word still holds enough power to be unusable in civilized conversation. But I accept the argument from authority that I don't need to understand it, if you do. I remember back in the day you mentioned that you had someone in your family who was mentally challenged or it has something to do with your job or some junk I'm not sure because I can't remember.....
Anyway, the point is that I accept that you are in the position to tell me that it's not ok.

I didn't take exception to 'retarded' and if you want to use it I don't really care, though DD individuals and their families will. I used that to point out that while on your crusade to label participants in the thread as detractors of Holocaust survivors and heartless fiends, you use a similarly offensive term often. This wasn't just restricted to this thread, as I've noticed you've used the adjective 'retarded' before. If you wish to argue that 'retarded' shouldn't have that kind of power, fine, and I would be inclined to agree with you, as I think 'nigger' or any other derogatory term should be likewise lessened in its impact. But the fact remains that, if I were to use the term 'nigger' around a person of African descent, no matter its context, they would probably take exception to that; likewise, if you're going to use the term 'retarded,' a DD individual cogent enough to understand the word will also take exception. You know this already as in your response to my first post you yourself said the current term is DD and not 'retarded.'

In keeping with your "retarded shouldn't have such an impact" stance, shouldn't this extend to Nazi and Holocaust jokes? Mental retardation is much more relevant in today's world than WWII events.

For reference, yes, I work with individuals with DD.

I did not read it. Start over. Wait, . .
Are you saying that Holocaust humor is satire? Why aren't you even using Comedys that take place during the Holocaust as your examples? Like To Be or Not to Be or the Great Dictator?
...
But

All of my ancestor on my grandfather's side were killed by the Nazis except for him. My grandmother was an orphan who's brother was shot and killed by the KKK. After that, they strung his body up in a tree and used him for target practice. I was not raised by my parents, I was raised by these two people.

Now

When you say that the R word is still very offensive, I accept it, because it came from you. But when I say that it's unacceptable to make Holocaust jokes, you tell me that no one gives a shit and you make elaborate arguments about pop satire to make me look senile.

Nobody says that's not tragic. It is incredibly tragic.

-TG

chang50 wrote: Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

Anne Frank was a victim. Juan is not a victim, despite his revolting demands everyone recognize him as a living Anne Frank.

In general, victims don't tend to throw loud tantrums demanding everyone recognize them as victims. They're usually not as borderline gleeful at the opportunity to relish the public with every detail of their victimization-(through-process-of-acquaintance) as Juan has been. Insomnia-Juan is what is referred to as a "Holocaust Tourist."

saxitoxin wrote:

chang50 wrote: Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

Anne Frank was a victim. Juan is not a victim, despite his revolting demands everyone recognize him as a living Anne Frank.

In general, victims don't tend to throw loud tantrums demanding everyone recognize them as victims. They're usually not as borderline gleeful at the opportunity to relish the public with every detail of their victimization-(through-process-of-acquaintance) as Juan has been. Insomnia-Juan is what is referred to as a "Holocaust Tourist."

Ouch! I can feel the heat on that little guy from over here!

saxitoxin wrote:Anne Frank was a victim. Juan is not a victim, despite his revolting demands everyone recognize him as a living Anne Frank.

In general, victims don't tend to throw loud tantrums demanding everyone recognize them as victims. They're usually not as borderline gleeful at the opportunity to relish the public with every detail of their victimization-(through-process-of-acquaintance) as Juan has been. Insomnia-Juan is what is referred to as a "Holocaust Tourist."

Are you suggesting that the shadow of the Holocaust might not permeate into every aspect of Juan's life to the extent that it would if he himself had personally lived through it?

Funkyterrance wrote:

chang50 wrote:Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

I you haven't noticed, CC is not a courtroom and there are no laws so to speak about what is offensive and what isn't, barring the forum guidelines. So no, there is not nescessarily any more validity to Juan's case than tgd's unless the community as a whole agrees that it's so. In fact, thus far it appears as though more individuals are claiming that JB's second hand involvement in the Holocaust has no more if not less validity than any other "butthurt" that might occur on here. Juan, and now chang, are assuming facts(second hand affects of the Holocaust are somehow more valid than the affects of firsthand insults to one's church) to base their entire case when it appears as though this is not even the general consensus. For the umpteenth time, the Holocaust, due to it's not-so-recent nature, is not considered by some to have the gravity that JB insists it should.
Need I remind those out there that JB and others have a tendency to mock/demonize the church and those of faith, not discuss it/them? Surely this needs to be taken into consideration as well.

But it is a forum where people give their opinions and I have given mine...and it makes zero difference who agrees with me or not.My opinions are not swayed by the general consensus.It is my belief that in dealing with any Holocaust,be it the Shoah or the genocide of native Americans the subject should be accorded more respect than speculation about metaphysical subjects we can only guess at,especially when this exaggerated respect leads to the abuse of the defenceless as in the case of the RC church.

Lootifer wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

chang50 wrote: Details like the Holocaust victims and their families actually being victims as compared to the hierarchy of the Catholic church who have repeatedly victimised people in their care historically?

Anne Frank was a victim. Juan is not a victim, despite his revolting demands everyone recognize him as a living Anne Frank.

In general, victims don't tend to throw loud tantrums demanding everyone recognize them as victims. They're usually not as borderline gleeful at the opportunity to relish the public with every detail of their victimization-(through-process-of-acquaintance) as Juan has been. Insomnia-Juan is what is referred to as a "Holocaust Tourist."

Ouch! I can feel the heat on that little guy from over here!

On who, me?

I never understand why people in this forum put any stock into anything Saxi says in a serious thread. If I were to form a debate team here and try to compete with other teams, Saxi would be my last choice for a member. I mean, everything he says is propagandist, and untenable. When you confront him with that, he attacks you personally or he doesn't own up to it and turns his propa-genda into a joke of some kind. This is totally fine, because Saxi is just a pretend character, but let's not go believing that he's a sage wise man with great insights into the human condition. He just bullshits about stuff no one cares enough to call bullshit on. Plus, why would anyone question him when he viciously lashes out at everyone who does? Well, I never cared enough to call bullshit before myself, until I saw some forum regs saying "saxi makes me think."
Like you need Saxi to tell you drone-striking innocent people is wrong. Duh.
That's also where all of Saxi's great vanity comes from. When he's joking, he can be brilliant. So he gets a lot of just-deserved praise. But everyone's repeated praise has gone to his head. He's just an egomaniac now. Earlier in this thread, he said that Holocaust jokes are acceptable. But I'm not allowed to talk about my family history, or I'm pretending to be a victim. How silly is he?
Holocaust jokes are ok.... but being raised by Holocaust survivors is not acceptable. - Saxilogic


And the reason, my fellow-forum goers, that he uses personal attacks is the same reason that Stalin or Ford used personal attacks. After so much praise has become lavished on him, his mind has become warped to believe that he's the greatest most infallible thing ever and no one mortal can question his authority. But there's Sym, player, and me... and we all question his lack of proofs or reasoning all the time. His personal attacks against us is a defense mechanism. He's doing what the big man in the prison yard does when he stamps out any dissent against his authority. Saxi has repeatedly said, out of the blue, that my intellectualism isn't equal to his. That's his ego talking saying "don't talk back to me, boy, or I will thrash you!" And he believes it; because he is a megalomaniac. And that's fine, egomaniacs can be funny to watch implode or whatever, just don't be taking his posts seriously.

And this is also why I find it so easy to manipulate his posting habits. I know that there are certain things his ego cannot ignore. A challenge to his intelligence or knowledge about world affairs or politics will always draw an attack. It's the same thing as telling the big man in the jail-yard that he looks like a b*tch. Saxi's puppeteer's mind goes red and he can't compose himself. Another thing you can do is ask him a solid question about such topics to set him up for a good joke. He'll always take advantage of a good set-up too.

Funkyterrance wrote:

Symmetry wrote:So what do you mean by more claim?

Well, to be fair, Juan has constructed a whole system of "what is offensive" where the weight of each individual offense is not decided by the emotional impact on the recipient but on the general consensus of "minds past and present" so yeah, JB needs to convincingly show why his personal reaction to the Holocaust joke thread is more valid than say tgd's reaction to a thread bashing the Catholic Church.
Jb is the one getting technical/scientific about the appropriate reactions to the multicolored rainbow that makes up all potentially offensive remarks/threads so why not discuss the strength of firsthand experiences versus secondhand, thirdhand and so on?
I don't personally think the details of the offense matter as long as someone is legitimately offended but Juan has made it abundantly clear that the details do matter so it's up to him to defend this monster he's created.

I have explained it several times. Page 12 was the last one.
Does anyone know if Voltaire or Aurileous is required reading in college? I didn't create this monster, and it was settled in the early 1700s.
Anyway, the forum has backed up what I said. Take a look at our threads. We have several going on right now where religion is being ridiculed, and one where people are gently explaining why the Holocaust isn't a laughing matter. This thread is just being avoided is all.

Just look at society in general. America is the only Western country where religion is considered too taboo for civilized discussion. Why is that? And why is it that our comedians make so many successful jokes about religion, but none about the Holocaust? Why is it that only corporations and businesses support the idea that any topic that can hurt feelings cannot be talked about? If a co-worker tells you that Apples hurt their feelings then you can't discuss apples.

Plus, we're talking about pedophilia, and you can't even address that. I don't understand if you're defending religion-supported pedophilia, or are saying that all Catholics aren't pedophiles or what exactly.
I'm not saying all Catholics are pedophiles, I was saying that the Catholic church is protecting pedophiles from the law. And for people to support that system is disgusting. And I made these statements like 2 years ago when there was a new story about a rape in the news everyday. We were all angry about it, and I still am. You're criticizing the fact that I criticized pedophilia and hurt tgd's feelings. Saxi says that TGD has a cult personality because he supports the church even though he doesn't support pedophilia (I presume). I don't know, but you have to question the moral integrity of anyone who would finance pedophilia. Don't you?

DoomYoshi wrote:I do care what the Catholic Church does. However, compared to the alternatives of "Get-Rich-Quick/Creationism" Protestantism (e.g. Joel Olsteen) or "Straps Bomb to Chest because there is no Halal meat at the Office Building Jewish Deli" Islam, I would prefer Catholicism.

Seconded. Plus, compared to other Christianitys, Catholicism has got some very rich and romantic history.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I didn't take exception to 'retarded' and if you want to use it I don't really care, though DD individuals and their families will.

In keeping with your "retarded shouldn't have such an impact" stance, shouldn't this extend to Nazi and Holocaust jokes? Mental retardation is much more relevant in today's world than WWII events.
-TG

Oh, I'm not going to use it. I do care.
My stance has changed.... and there have been other Genocides since then, so the Holocaust is still quite relevant.

Cambodia in the 70's
Bosnia in the 90's
Soviet Union... pretty much every year
Rowanda in the 90's and others
Plus, like I said, there are not only Holocaust survivors alive in the world, but also the children that they raised as well. Certainly the issue remains important and sensitive with them.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
On who, me?

I never understand why people in this forum put any stock into anything Saxi says in a serious thread. If I were to form a debate team here and try to compete with other teams, Saxi would be my last choice for a member. I mean, everything he says is propagandist, and untenable. When you confront him with that, he attacks you personally or he doesn't own up to it and turns his propa-genda into a joke of some kind. This is totally fine, because Saxi is just a pretend character, but let's not go believing that he's a sage wise man with great insights into the human condition. He just bullshits about stuff no one cares enough to call bullshit on. Plus, why would anyone question him when he viciously lashes out at everyone who does? Well, I never cared enough to call bullshit before myself, until I saw some forum regs saying "saxi makes me think."
Like you need Saxi to tell you drone-striking innocent people is wrong. Duh.
That's also where all of Saxi's great vanity comes from. When he's joking, he can be brilliant. So he gets a lot of just-deserved praise. But everyone's repeated praise has gone to his head. He's just an egomaniac now. Earlier in this thread, he said that Holocaust jokes are acceptable. But I'm not allowed to talk about my family history, or I'm pretending to be a victim. How silly is he?
Holocaust jokes are ok.... but being raised by Holocaust survivors is not acceptable. - Saxilogic


And the reason, my fellow-forum goers, that he uses personal attacks is the same reason that Stalin or Ford used personal attacks. After so much praise has become lavished on him, his mind has become warped to believe that he's the greatest most infallible thing ever and no one mortal can question his authority. But there's Sym, player, and me... and we all question his lack of proofs or reasoning all the time. His personal attacks against us is a defense mechanism. He's doing what the big man in the prison yard does when he stamps out any dissent against his authority. Saxi has repeatedly said, out of the blue, that my intellectualism isn't equal to his. That's his ego talking saying "don't talk back to me, boy, or I will thrash you!" And he believes it; because he is a megalomaniac. And that's fine, egomaniacs can be funny to watch implode or whatever, just don't be taking his posts seriously.

And this is also why I find it so easy to manipulate his posting habits. I know that there are certain things his ego cannot ignore. A challenge to his intelligence or knowledge about world affairs or politics will always draw an attack. It's the same thing as telling the big man in the jail-yard that he looks like a b*tch. Saxi's puppeteer's mind goes red and he can't compose himself. Another thing you can do is ask him a solid question about such topics to set him up for a good joke. He'll always take advantage of a good set-up too.

Admittedly saxi is popular for his charismatic/humorous side which is not his fault, he's just giving the people what they want, right? Humor is a highly cherished and imho overrated trait here but there's no fighting that.
I can say, however, that It's pretty hard to find an example of saxi putting someone down for their beliefs or for that matter, being wishy-washy in his own. He may thrash your argument for being somewhat ridiculous but I can't think of any instances where he's deliberately hurtful or hateful and he's certainly not a hypocrite. Of course he's intelligent but It's these aforementioned qualities I think that make him a trustworthy element while the comedy is essentially a bonus and more or less unrelated since many of his readers are intelligent as well and would see through such cheap tricks. If saxi used humor and personal attacks as tools to the extent you are suggesting he would never survive.
But really, this theory of saxi using humor to "convert" people to his views(I think he uses humor for his own titillation most of the time tbh), even if were true, is relevant how? I mean, what value do you place on the opinions of those whose viewpoint on a subject can be swayed by a few timely jokes?

Juan_Bottom wrote:Just look at society in general. America is the only Western country where religion is considered too taboo for civilized discussion. Why is that? And why is it that our comedians make so many successful jokes about religion, but none about the Holocaust? Why is it that only corporations and businesses support the idea that any topic that can hurt feelings cannot be talked about? If a co-worker tells you that Apples hurt their feelings then you can't discuss apples.

So honestly I don't give a f*ck what the rules are at work regarding things which are allowed to talk about and which are not. If one of my co-workers is traumatized by discussions regarding apples, even if it's "allowed" by the establishment I'm not going to immerse myself in a conversation at work discussing how stupid an emotional response to apples is. And if I did, I would not have the audacity to call someone else out when they started to discuss something that was personally traumatizing to me.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Plus, we're talking about pedophilia, and you can't even address that. I don't understand if you're defending religion-supported pedophilia, or are saying that all Catholics aren't pedophiles or what exactly.

If you want to adress pedophilia then lets address it, but why do you address it as though it's an inseparable trait of the church as a whole? The Catholic church is I guess under the impression that God will deal with the pedophiles justly. The Catholic church is dealing with the situation within the bounds of the legal system as they are obligated so they are actually holding to their belief system as well as they can within the law. Isn't that what America is all about? Besides, pedophiles exist in most likely all organizations so should none of these organizations be financed? The concept is just preposterous.

Funkyterrance - Juan needs to answer for the monster he created...

Juan - Ok, Voltaire said -

Funkyterrance- I DON'T CARE WHAT THE RULES ARE

Juan - ...

Funkyterrance wrote:And if I did, I would not have the audacity to call someone else out when they started to discuss something that was personally traumatizing to me.

Me either.

Funkyterrance wrote:If one of my co-workers is traumatized by discussions regarding apples, even if it's "allowed" by the establishment I'm not going to immerse myself in a conversation at work discussing how stupid an emotional response to apples is.

Me either.

Funkyterrance wrote:If you want to adress pedophilia then lets address it, but why do you address it as though it's an inseparable trait of the church as a whole?

Is it?

The Church is protecting the rapist priests. They are not cooperating with police investigations. TGD said as much earlier.
Instead, the church conducts it's own investigations, then bury's the evidence so that the police cannot have it.
This is not a moral practice, nor is it consistent with the Bible, nor should you say "well sure the church houses child rapists, but you gotta separate the faith from it's systematic rapes of children."
Dafuq? I will separate the child predation of the church when the church does. But so long as they continue to house and protect child rapists from the police, then the two are quite unfortunately inseparable, no matter how much people say it is.

Funkyterrance wrote: Besides, pedophiles exist in most likely all organizations so should none of these organizations be financed? The concept is just preposterous.

I have no issue with an organization that discovers that a member is raping children and then expels that member. I have only appreciation for such a group.
If another group should hire a reformed pedophile or something, then that's nothing for me to interfere with, so long as they are keeping that person away from children.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The Church is protecting the rapist priests. They are not cooperating with police investigations. TGD said as much earlier.
Instead, the church conducts it's own investigations, then bury's the evidence so that the police cannot have it.
This is not a moral practice, nor is it consistent with the Bible, nor should you say "well sure the church houses child rapists, but you gotta separate the faith from it's systematic rapes of children."
Dafuq? I will separate the child predation of the church when the church does. But so long as they continue to house and protect child rapists from the police, then the two are quite unfortunately inseparable, no matter how much people say it is.

Where you have not made the separation is as between Catholics and the Catholic Church. That is a separation that I think you need to make, but you have not. There are countless examples of organizations which do horrible things which are indirectly supported by the members of the organization or the constituents of the organization. I can give you one that should be familiar. You publicly support and perhaps voted for someone who regularly orders drone strikes against civilian targets, committing horrible international crimes.

I don't believe you support this horrible act. I don't believe you raise your hands and shout "Yay!" when another drone strike kills or maims a child. You may also be working to ensure that drone strikes don't happen again, but far be it for me to judge you on that.

I have no issue with your characterization of the Catholic Church and its leadership (at least some of them) being evil, morally bankrupt, and hypocritical in its handling of the pedophilia scandals (although I'm not sure I agree with your term "systematic"). I do have an issue with your decision to lambast parishoners for financially supporting the church, when it seems that you don't know what the parishoners are doing (seems to me that they are attempting to hold the Church accountable - at least from what I've read and experienced and participated in firsthand).

That is ultimately what I found offensive, for whatever it's worth. Your critique of the Catholic Church and some of its leadership is spot on. There's no denying that the pope was a young Nazi (although I question the ability for the young man to escape from that society, probably shouldn't choose a pope with that background). There's no denying that the Catholic Church and its leaders regularly goes out of its way to protect accused pedophiles. But it's offensive to be accused of supporting the protection of accused pedophiles when you don't know anything about me or anything about the parishoners you are accusing (if accusing is the word - it's probably "gross generalizing disparagement."

EDIT - We should start a separate thread on this. So I'm going to.